Listen to this quote from Marcus Bachmann, husband of GOP presidential hopeful, Michele Bachmann.
I'll leave the jokes about how Marcus Bachmann is so clearly gay to the stand up comics.
Of course, my first reaction to this was to question whether or not this was a voice inside my head:) After I realized (like so many other voices) that it was, in fact, real, I thought about something that Ms. Bachmann said a while back. In a speech to congregants of the the Living Word Christian Center in 2006, she stated that she pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to. “The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands,” she said.
So, does that mean that if she is elected she will start homosexual re-education camps for the barbarians?
More importantly, if she is submissive to her husband, won't that mean that he is the actual president? And an unelected one at that!
61 comments:
Funny how you would rather talk about Bachmann than any Democrat. It so reminds me of a Baptist preacher going on and on about Satan. Then again, nearly every word you do ever offer about Obama is a lot like praising Jesus.
And yes, it is a voice in your head - because there isn't a person reading/commenting on this blog that gives a rats ass about her - besides you. I have to wonder if you fail to engage with your students the same way.
I'll make you a deal. I'll vote for a Bachmann/Kuchinich ticket (you pick the order), and you convince him to run.
All he did was restated this passage in his own words:
But each one is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires. Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it gives birth to death.
— James 1:14–15
You claim to be a "Christian", yet you treat this as crazy talk?
It doesn't take much thinking (as in, it is self–evident) to see that this is true. People do wrong things because they want to. They lie because they want to either avoid punishment or someone's pain. They steal because they want something they couldn't otherwise have. They murder because they want something (a feeling of power, the other person's things, etc.). They sleep around because it feels good, and/or it gives them a feeling of power, or they just want to. And you think this is crazy talk?
Or are you suggesting that people do wrong and harmful things because they're robots controlled against their will by the body snatchers?
Or are you suggesting that people do wrong and harmful things because they're robots controlled against their will by the body snatchers?
Mark has come pretty close to claiming exactly that. He's even "programmed" by big, evil corporations to go buy burgers when they demand. :) He's probably been programmed to suck corporate cock, too, but he's kept that part of his life in the closet. His anti-corporate rants are probably camouflage to hide his secret corporate cock-sucking shame. :O
So...homosexuality is a "wrong and harmful thing?"
So...homosexuality is a "wrong and harmful thing?"
Aren't you the one always deriding people for sucking cock? Or is corporate cock somehow gender (and sexual preference) neutral?
Wait, let me guess - this is another of those double standards.
So...homosexuality is a "wrong and harmful thing?"
Some statistics:
- The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.
- The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.
Yes, it's harmful. (Note: Another study not listed at the page I'm referring to has shown that the degree of social acceptance has no impact on these early deaths.)
However, as if that wasn't bad enough:
- 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization.
- 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.
- Homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.
- Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.
- 50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals).
- About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians.
Harmful? Abso-friggin'-lutely!
More stats, plus references to the actual studies can be found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
As for wrong, YOU claim to be a Christian. The Bible calls homosexual behavior a sin. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9-10; 1st Timothy 1:8-11, Jude 7, also note that sex between a married man and woman is the only acceptable standard set by God: Matthew 19:4-6) So by the standard YOU CLAIM FOR YOURSELF, it is also wrong.
Thank you, Anonymous, for yet another example of a "voice inside my head."
That's it? No argument that it's not a destructive lifestyle? Or that the studies are wrong? Just (apparently) some sort of "I'll believe what I want to believe in spite of the facts?"
Why do you hate those who are stuck in the lifestyle?
BTW, what is this "voice" saying to you?
Thank you, Anonymous, for yet another example of a "voice inside my head."
What about your own voice - the one that derides cock sucking? Does that mean you don't like having your cock sucked, or that you find it in general 'icky'? You certainly and unambiguously state that it is a demeaning activity for the person performing it. What about your own homophobic reaction - is that not something you ever reflect upon?
I'll tell you what I think, anonymous. I think your entire post reminds me of what they used to say about black people. That's what I fucking think. The next thing you'll be telling me is that they should be rounded up and sent to camps for re-education or extermination. And, Juris, do you think it's possible for you to leave a post where you don't personally attack Mark? Let's see if you can do it for one whole week.
I think your entire post reminds me of what they used to say about black people. That's what I fucking think.
The problem is...you don't think, you react.
Studies show that it is harmful. That was the question and it was answered.
"I think your entire post reminds me of what they used to say about black people. That's what I fucking think. The next thing you'll be telling me is that they should be rounded up and sent to camps for re-education or extermination."
Well, now we know what "the voice in his head" is saying, and once again, it's not what I wrote.
The true irony of Markadelphia and stonefreak's position is that by denying the harmful effects of the homosexual lifestyle and promoting it as just as good as monogamous one-partner-for-life heterosexual marriage, they are encouraging people to live that lifestyle. In short, they are pushing people into hurting themselves. They claim to be the "caring" ones, but last time I checked, someone who truly cares about someone else's well being does NOT encourage them to harm themselves.
And in Marky's case, since he claims to be a christian, he's also a full bore hypocrite, to boot.
"Studies show that it is harmful. That was the question and it was answered."
And just 'cause I like being pedantic, I'll point out that it's not just one or two cherry picked studies. It's a consistent pattern of studies; some of which have been conducted by self-proclaimed homosexuals who, if they allowed their biases to affect the conclusions, would be expected to downplay the negative effects.
And, Juris, do you think it's possible for you to leave a post where you don't personally attack Mark?
There are plenty of those. They don't get responses either. In this case, I am not attacking M - I am attacking his hypocrisy. I guess you might think that an integral part of him, but I don't.
Without the hypocrisy, this blog would lose most of its appeal.
Without the glaring contradictions between what is imagined and what is factual, the rest of the appeal is gone.
Keep up the good work Mark!
You may have lost a friend in Rev. Jim, but I wouldn't worry about that corporate cock sucker. Who needs friends like him and his cock-sucking Republican hate spewing mother fuckers? I can only imagine what he says in his church. Probably "God damn America!" or some other Repubelican't slogan...
Let's assume for a moment that Anonymous's link is scientifically valid (which I can hardly write without laughing my fucking ass off). Perhaps a key reason why life is so miserable for gay people is because of people like Anonymous. Living in a culture that has a substantial number of people who think that homosexuals prey on children (as the link states) can do that to you.
Studies show that it is harmful. That was the question and it was answered
So, 6Kings, am I to understand that you take a link to a Catholic web site that has cherry picked and obviously biased information as being scientifically sound? By that logic, I can put up a link from the Gay Pride Institute that states that gay people live longer, are great parents, and the best members of society EVER!!! I guess the scientific method only applies in certain situations:)
All of this debate is pretty funny when you consider that anonymous and others who think like him/her have lost the battle. They always do. In fact, they usually end up putting a bullet in their head in some bunker and people look back on them in history with great contempt and disgust. The tide has shifted in the favor of people who believe that everyone has a right to love who they want to love and will be afforded those same rights and respect.
Regarding sin, I would suggest that you study the Jesus Christ part of the Bible where he died for our sins and a new covenant between man and God was formed. Hebrews 8 explains it quite well. Pay close attention to verse 12. The central themes of Christianity (love thy neighbor, serve the poor, help the needy) are where the focus should be. It's been my experience that people that are caught up in the whole sexual sins and going to hell game have some very serious issues with their sexuality. They tend to forget that God will ultimately judge us on how we treat the least fortunate in our society not on whether or not we had sex out of wedlock or with someone of the same sex.
The Bible was written by men, Anonymous....men that were deeply flawed not just in the eyes of God but in general. The men of that time were about the same as the hirabis we see today. These were fearful, paranoid and ignorant men who sought to define sexuality from a highly misogynist point of view. In other words, not everything in the Bible is valid for today. Heck, parts of the Bible are contradictory and make no sense even for 2000 years ago let alone today.
So M again I ask - why do you posit fellatio as such a demeaning activity? I suppose you will just keep ignoring that because it so painfully exposes your roaring hypocrisy. That's okay, there are plenty of Christians like you - major league hypocrites. You might not be so harsh on the others given your own predilections though.
(To the tune of Sinatra's "Show Business")
There're no standards like double standards.
Oh, it wasn't just a reaction, 6Kings. It took me a good hour before I could type intelligently in the face of such hatred and bigotry. Thankfully, Mark is correct. People like Anonymous all end up the same way.
And boiling Mark's response down:
"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts. Oh, and BTW, I love me my genetic fallacy."
The fact that the page I linked referred to 29 (that's TWENTY-NINE for the willfully blind) different studies apparently doesn't mean a damn thing. And those aren't the only studies out there, just the handiest link I had at my fingertips.
Then there's this gem:
The Bible was written by men, Anonymous....men that were deeply flawed not just in the eyes of God but in general.
So you're a "Christian" that believes either:
A) God is incapable of getting men to write down exactly what He wants written down, therefore you're free to make up whatever you like about Him because He hasn't actually told anyone about Himself.
or
B) God is capable of getting men to write down exactly what He wants written (the Bible makes this claim in a number of places) and you're putting yourself above God anyway.
Either way, your Rule of Faith is not anything coming from God, it's YOU. Now who else have I heard of attempting to do this before?
:::cough:Lucifer:cough:::
Let me put it this way. You told me to look at Hebrews 8, especially verse 12 as if I should be commanded by it. But by your standard, we can't know what comes from God and what comes from deeply flawed, fearful, paranoid, ignorant, misogynistic men who wrote invalid things in the Bible. Therefore, why should I pay any attention to the book of Hebrews? After all, in your view, it's probably just as flawed as the rest!
Larry,
Absolutely. Heck, if he didn't have double standards, he would have no standards at all!
stonesfan, Bigotry? Oh, please! At least I'm attempting to look at the facts. You guys have responded with absolutely nothing to back up your jerking knees—no studies, references, nothing, none, zip, zilch, nada, not a single blasted thing—only prejudice and, well, bigotry. (Yes Virginia, "Those 'hateful' conservatives" is bigotry. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry) Project much?
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
You go God. You are one fucked up motherfucker. I'll worship your ass. Then I'll quote you to show everyone else how fucked up they are.
Is this some sort of joke? Anonymous poster, do you honestly believe your link is fact based? I think you should check those studies thoroughly before you make such a claim. Some of those sources are 30+ years old.
iowa kid,
It's not easy to find links that refer to a large number of studies and lay out statistics in an easily digestible form. Usually to find references to large numbers of studies, you need to go to books. I already had that one, which is why I used it.
If you think those studies are wrong, then show that they're wrong. Find studies that show homosexuality is not a destructive lifestyle. Don't just rely on your prejudices.
Here's another link that lists similar statistics. IMPORTANT: Pay attention to the sources in this link. Many of those sources are from the homosexual community themselves, such as "The Advocate".
http://www.acutehivinfection.com/the-gay-lifestyle-nothing-joyful-about-the-facts/
Here's another link with statistics gathered by a single source; 6 homosexual activists who filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights council that they weren't doing enough to overcome the destructiveness of the homosexual lifestyle:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/mar/09031007
Perhaps you can explain why study after study after study keeps showing the same results? When the homosexuals are saying the exact same things about their own lifestyles, can you seriously claim bias? Get real!
They have tried to invalidate the source so far but they haven't disputed any facts contained in them yet.
Invalidating the source is just so much easier, and these folks aren't up to much of anything tough.
Even easier is "lalalala, I can't hear you".
:::cough:Lucifer:cough:::
Ah, I see. Because I don't believe in Republican Jesus I must be influenced by the devil. Sorry, anonymous, but I don't believe in children's fantasies regarding the devil.
Last-I have to say I'm pretty disappointed in you. And juris as well. I know that both of you are socially liberal so I would think that you would be seriously questioning the links provided here by anonymous. I guess winning a blog debate and contradicting me is more important than calling out the sheer human ugliness contained in the first link. (Homosexuals prey on children)
Anonymous, if you are going to use science to declare that homosexuality is destructive than you must use the scientific method. That means several things which include but are not limited to: systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. In addition, your case must be subject to peer review and retain as much objectivity as possible. More importantly, ALL available date must be available for scrutiny by researchers. You have fallen well short of this criteria.
You pointed to an obviously biased site with outdated and cherry picked data that severely suffers from confirmation bias. You have not carefully examined each of these studies and checked for bias. That's not my job (or anyone else's) to do it-it's YOURS because you made the claim. Throwing up links and saying, "See? I'm right" may work for the people here who live to contradict me but it's not fact based...it's not valid...it's not critical thinking...it's not science. Thus far, it is merely an opinion and one that is quite biased at that. No problem if you want to have it but I'd take out the word "gay" and put in the word "Jew" in the interest of gaining some possible perspective.
Now, if I threw up a link like this
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/pediatrics;109/2/341?fulltext=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET
or this...
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
and said, "See?" I would be guilty of the same thing. This is not science, not fact based and not critical thinking. And that's even with the latter link directly refuting Cameron's research from your first link.
Sociological research of this nature is not something that can be easily stamped as FACT. It's ongoing and ever changing as our culture changes. It's no problem if you don't like gay people, think they are going to hell, or don't want to hang around them. That's your opinion. Trying to dress it up as fact, however, is terribly sad and pathetic. Of course, that's just my opinion and not fact:)
I'll tell what is fact, however. This kind of thinking has historically led to one direction. You know what I am talking about. Don't go down that path. It always ends the same way...badly...for people like you.
Last-I have to say I'm pretty disappointed in you. And juris as well. I know that both of you are socially liberal so I would think that you would be seriously questioning the links provided here by anonymous.
I'm sorry I didn't hear that very clearly - were you apologizing for your hypocrisy about using cock-sucking as a homophobic and juvenile put-down? For repeatedly suggesting that homosexual practices demean the participant?
You can stay in that hole you dug until you are willing to admit your error. Do that and I'll be happy to consider assisting you.
Why does sucking corporate cock have to be between two men? Women suck cock as well. I didn't take it as demeaning at all either- more like pleasuring someone because you love them-which you do because you love corporations.
I didn't realize Reverend Jim was a woman. Nor myself. Won't my wife be surprised tonight!
So, Santa, you mean that calling someone a cock sucker is not an attempt at a putdown? It's actually a compliment?
Ahh... my mistake. I totally misunderstood Mark's tone.
Have a nice evening, cock sucker!
Why does sucking corporate cock have to be between two men?
Well, one of them has to be a man or there isn't much to suck, now is there? Since the comments about sucking corporate cock were all directed at men, and M was well aware of that, I'd say that pretty clearly implies homosexual fellatio - wouldn't you?
I gotta give it to ya Santa, you never miss an opportunity to be an even bigger buffoon than just about anyone around. Keep it up (so to speak) big guy!
I think you may be a tad obsessive about this corporate cock sucking thing, juris. I'm just sayin'....:)
Good points, Santa. And you're right, it was never intended as a bad thing. It was more from a desire to pleasure the gods of industry. If only the government would get out of their way, all would be well.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any gay friends, juris? I have a zillion living in Minneapolis and they talk about cock sucking (corporate or otherwise) all the time...
Next you will be saying that all of your references to "pound 'em in the ass prison" are really meant as "it pleases people to engage in anal sex".
Just out of curiosity, do you have any gay friends, juris?
More than you actually do I bet. "Zillions" indeed.
You are such a childish liar M. Just as childish as with your insults. Don't even attempt to fool yourself 'cause you aren't fooling anyone else.
> I guess winning a blog debate and contradicting me is more important than calling out the sheer human ugliness contained in the first link. (Homosexuals prey on children)
NAMBLA
Mark, there certainly is an element of submission when describing Rev Jim the way you did...implying that he is submitting to the corporate world by fellating them. It wasn't intended to be a bad thing? Oh puhlease.
I don't worship corporations santa so you aren't talking to me, you're talking to the conservative position in your head.
As you can tell, I don't do much linking to internet sites in discussions like this, as if anything we type can only be true if it is on the internet somewhere.
BTW, all attention so far has been paid to one link as opposed to the other 2.
It's not submission. It's worship combined with being a corporate apologist. But here we are again with the redirect on me and not the issue at hand. Do you want to have a president that is not elected (Marcus Bachmann?) That's what Michele said her marriage was all about.
Not an apologist, just picking between the lesser of two evils. I know full well that corporations don't care about me just like your savior politicians don't care about me.
I never said I wanted Marcus or Michelle as president. There are much more important things going on like the MN govt shutdown (that is coming to an end) or the debt ceiling talks, which must not be as important as Marcus Bachmann.
M: I don't believe in children's fantasies regarding the devil.
I could have sworn that you claimed the words of Jesus as the only authoritative things in the Bible; as in you only really believe the red letters. Jesus stated quite plainly that Satan and demons are real. (Matt 13:39, Matt 25:41, Mark 4:15, Mark 16:17, Luke 10:18, Luke 13:32, Luke 22:31, John 8:44) What's left? The margins where your write your notes? All hail the all powerful god of God, the arbiter of all righteousness, who will cast God down from his throne and judge him guilty based on the standard he pulled from his … echo chamber!
M: the sheer human ugliness contained in the first link. (Homosexuals prey on children)
And here is a classic, crystal clear example of Marxy arguing with the voices in his head, and not the person debating him. MY argument is that the homosexual lifestyle harms its participants. I cited numerous statistics from studies which backed up my point. But instead of arguing with MY point, Marxy went to the link I provided as a source, found a DIFFERENT statistic which I did not use and has nothing to do with my argument, and argued with that!
M: Anonymous, if you are going to use science to declare that homosexuality is destructive than you must use the scientific method. … You have fallen well short of this criteria.
WTF is wrong with you?!? Seriously? I provide references to studies performed using the scientific method and published in peer reviewed journals, and you pull a Shultz?!? ("I know nothing. Nothing!!) What's your next act to demonstrate your willful fecklessness?
M: I don't believe in children's fantasies regarding the devil.
I could have sworn that you claimed the words of Jesus as the only authoritative things in the Bible; as in you only really believe the red letters. Jesus stated quite plainly that Satan and demons are real. (Matt 13:39, Matt 25:41, Mark 4:15, Mark 16:17, Luke 10:18, Luke 13:32, Luke 22:31, John 8:44) What's left? The margins where your write your notes? All hail the all powerful god of God, the arbiter of all righteousness, who will cast God down from his throne and judge him guilty based on the standard he pulled from his … echo chamber!
M: the sheer human ugliness contained in the first link. (Homosexuals prey on children)
And here is a classic, crystal clear example of Marxy arguing with the voices in his head, and not the person debating him. MY argument is that the homosexual lifestyle harms its participants. I cited numerous statistics from studies which backed up my point. But instead of arguing with MY point, Marxy went to the link I provided as a source, found a DIFFERENT statistic which I did not use and has nothing to do with my argument, and argued with that!
M: Anonymous, if you are going to use science to declare that homosexuality is destructive than you must use the scientific method. … You have fallen well short of this criteria.
WTF is wrong with you?!? Seriously? I provide references to studies performed using the scientific method and published in peer reviewed journals, and you pull a Shultz?!? ("I know nothing. Nothing!!") What's your next act to demonstrate your willful fecklessness?
Oh goody. Comments are getting eaten again.
M: I don't believe in children's fantasies regarding the devil.
I could have sworn that you claimed the words of Jesus as the only authoritative things in the Bible; as in you only really believe the red letters. Jesus stated quite plainly that Satan and demons are real. (Matt 13:39, Matt 25:41, Mark 4:15, Mark 16:17, Luke 10:18, Luke 13:32, Luke 22:31, John 8:44) What's left? The margins where your write your notes? All hail the all powerful god of God, the arbiter of all righteousness, who will cast God down from his throne and judge him guilty based on the standard he pulled from his … echo chamber!
M: the sheer human ugliness contained in the first link. (Homosexuals prey on children)
And here is a crystal clear, textbook example of Marxy arguing with the voices in his head, and not the person debating him. MY argument is that the homosexual lifestyle harms its participants. I cited numerous statistics from studies which backed up my point. But instead of arguing with MY point, Marxy went to the link I provided as a source, found a DIFFERENT statistic which I did not use and has nothing to do with my argument, and argued with that!
M: Anonymous, if you are going to use science to declare that homosexuality is destructive than you must use the scientific method. … You have fallen well short of this criteria.
WTF is wrong with you?!? Seriously? I provide references to studies performed using the scientific method and published in peer reviewed journals, and you pull a Shultz?!? ("I know nothing. Nothing!!") What's your next act to demonstrate your willful fecklessness?
It's worship combined with being a corporate apologist.
Then you must be the stupidest mother fucker I have ever talked to - since you have never heard me excuse or otherwise apologize for corporate misbehavior. Yet you accuse me of doing exactly that. Do you understand how that might just piss me off a little? Do you understand why I might wonder who the fuck you are conversing with when you put words (amongst other things) into my mouth that are not mine?
Do you understand, at all?
JI, I will not let you talk to my cock sucking friend Mark that way. Being called a cock sucker is a compliment. Mark has lots of gay friends. And lots of black friends. In any case, he is a fabulous cock sucking blogger so you better lay off him.
Jesus stated quite plainly that Satan and demons are real.
Jesus also stated that you should poke out your eye if you look at a woman in lust. Should we all do that? Or was that hyperbole?
More importantly, He said, "He who puts his faith in me will do the very works which I do, and he will do greater things than these."
Greater than these...think about that...
I provide references to studies performed using the scientific method and published in peer reviewed journals
Your source is very biased which means that by accepting it as fact you demonstrates that you are not employing the scientific method (being objective, checking for bias). The data is clearly cherry picked, wouldn't you agree? Cameron's research was proven to be flawed as well or are we ignoring that part?
since you have never heard me excuse or otherwise apologize for corporate misbehavior.
juris, I submit that your entire ideology is based on corporate apology. You have excused immoral and even criminal behavior on the part of the private sector in this country. You have chosen to portray it as MY problem and MY issues. You attack me personally and, in your zeal to "prove me wrong," apologize constantly for corporate misbehavior. Your view of the government will not allow you to even remotely take issue with the private sector. All of you written words demonstrate this.
If you disagree with my assessment, then show me in your words by omitting personal attacks on me or anyone else.
Or was that hyperbole?
What was his topic? Hint, it starts in verse 20.
The data is clearly cherry picked,
Define "cherry picked".
Cameron's research was proven to be flawed as well or are we ignoring that part?
None of the statistics I quoted came from Cameron. Why does that matter?
Here's another "biased", "cherry picked" source:
Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at elevated risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.
The "biased" source? Well, the link says it all:
http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Populations/MSM.htm
Or how about this from the same "biased" source:
In the United States, recent evidence suggests a resurgence of HIV transmission among MSM; during 2001--2004, an estimated 44% of new HIV infections were in MSM,
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5531a1.htm
Or this:
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men. Recent increases in syphilis cases have been documented across the country. In 2008, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other bacterial STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
Do you get it yet? You don't need to "cherry pick" data or go to some back alley data abortionist to see that the homosexual lifestyle is DANGEROUS for its participants. The evidence is everywhere.
Hey Mark. As a conservative that doesn't care at all about the amount of cock-sucking going on in the world, you are in mortal danger of having to admit that you fucked this post up. You just happen to be wrong. Is that so unbelievable?
Why do you consider ANY contrary assertions to your opinion - to be so wrong?
I assume you are a heterosexual, based on your posts.
As a fellow hetero, I must say I'd like to go to sleep every night to having my cock sucked.
Much like you (and me) don't have to hate cock suckers, we don't have to be so politically correct that it is impossible to quote a statistic from verifiable (to your own opinion) sources.
Is the CDC verifiable?
Are any of the sources?
For TFSM's sake, listen to yourself.
You pointed to an obviously biased site with outdated and cherry picked data that severely suffers from confirmation bias. You have not carefully examined each of these studies and checked for bias. That's not my job (or anyone else's) to do it-it's YOURS because you made the claim. Throwing up links and saying, "See? I'm right" may work for the people here who live to contradict me but it's not fact based...it's not valid...it's not critical thinking...it's not science. Thus far, it is merely an opinion and one that is quite biased at that.
Ah, just like you do with evidence of climate change, then. So why is it still "science" when Al Gore and the UN do it?
Anonymous, again, you are not using the scientific method to prove your hypothesis. Until that happens, it's an opinion, not a fact.
Your CDC links and analysis provide an illustrative example of your flawed thinking. You could make the statement that high risk sex (gay or otherwise) is dangerous and harmful based on your numbers and that would be a little more grounded in method but being gay doesn't immediately mean dangerous. There are plenty of gay men that don't engage in high risk sex. In addition, your data set is out of date when compared with current data.
Using these statistics is the same thing as saying driving a car is harmful and dangerous based on the number of auto accidents a year.
juris, I submit that your entire ideology is based on corporate apology.
OK, you are that stupid. You decide what "my ideology" is, rather than listen to what I say. The narcissism of that is beyond astounding.
You have excused immoral and even criminal behavior on the part of the private sector in this country.
Quote me you lying mother fucker.
You have chosen to portray it as MY problem and MY issues.
That's a little ironic coming from someone who tells me what my position is (very inaccurately), rather than understanding what I write.
You attack me personally
That much is true, and for that I am willing to apologize.
apologize constantly for corporate misbehavior.
That is a fucking lie.
Your view of the government will not allow you to even remotely take issue with the private sector. All of you written words demonstrate this.
You understand very little of what I write. You constantly discount what I write and instead argue with some conservative caricature in your head. I have given you many opportunities to actively engage (precious few of which you taken advantage of), but I'm tired of my position being told to me, rather than me explaining it to you. I do indeed get frustrated and angry about that, and at those times lash out - which these days due to the cumulative effect is most of the time. Perhaps it is time I leave you to wallow in your own self-involved, self-centered universe. There appears to be no room for anyone that doesn't conform to the roles you have assigned to good people (those who believe as you do) and bad people (everyone else). How ironic that someone who deludes himself that he sees all those shades of gray is such a rigid black-and-whiter in reality.
I accept your apology, juris, and will always let you post whatever you want on here including personal insults even though they are counterproductive. I don't delete comments unless they are obvious spam (iPhones, Cialis:))
If my analysis is incorrect, then explain to me, in your opinion, what needs to change in the financial sector in this country so we don't continue to have these sorts of problems. Detail the faults of the private sector and the mistakes made by the captains of industry.
Splendid, and in the spirit of forgiveness, I accept - in advance - your apology for constantly mischaracterizing my position and calling me a corporate cock-sucker.
The first thing we need to get clear, for my explanation, is that not every business practice that is wrong is illegal, nor that just because something is legal it is necessarily ethical. We need to be clear about this, because you usually aren't.
Let's take a simple example - I sell you a car that turns out to be a lemon. Absent a "lemon law", I haven't done anything illegal - and depending on how much I disclosed, I may not have even done anything unethical. But you are all butthurt about it, and that is all that matters to you. Since there is no law that you can appeal to, and assuming you aren't going to break some other law to get even, you can do two things: 1) never do business with me again, 2) tell everyone what a rotten business I run. Amazingly enough, there isn't much I can do to stop you from doing either of those things.
This is important, because absent force (and god knows I don't want you running off into the Centerpoint/RMR swamp again) or fraud, you don't have much of an issue. Now, I think I know where you are actually headed, and that is the financial markets and the CDS hedge instruments.
There is a simple rule - don't be stupid with your money (or money entrusted to you). The corollary to that is don't come take my money to make up for you being stupid with yours. The problem started when the idiots (i.e. the political buddies in govt) decided to bail out Long Term Capital Management. The market will punish stupidity - except when govt doesn't allow that to happen. LTCM should've gone belly up - and then the next financial house couldn't have said "but you saved their ass - you have to save ours".
Of course when you can misconstrue a regulation intended to keep small investors out of the most dangerous investments - turning it into a tool of the rich to keep the goodies to themselves - well there just isn't much hope for understanding such a simple rule. Instead, you must trust that someone else much smarter than you can devise a very complex rule that you could never possibly understand - but you will rest assured all because of what that person tells you.
Sure, I agree that there is a difference between unethical and illegal. In regards to the financial sector, though, I am talking about illegal. Not one criminal prosecution for the clear fraud that went on. Complete crap and that is the fault of the government.
The rest of your statement is a good example of why I am so monumentally frustrated with you. It's the fault of the investor for being too stupid...the fault of the government for making dumb laws...not really the fault of the financial sector. The market will sort it all out if the government will leave well enough alone. That's simply not true in every sense of basic economics.
I wish there was a way that LTCM would not have been bailed out either but if Glass Steagall was still in place we wouldn't have had to do so. Instead, the market was woefully under regulated (as Manzi detailed in his piece) and their interconnections made a fine mess of everything so we had to bail them out to prevent the world economy from collapsing. It was a choice between vomiting and diarrhea-a choice that government is often confronted with-which always results in people blaming the government. I think that is bullshit.
Blaming the consumer for not understanding the intricacies of the CDO is like blaming the rape victim for wearing a tight skirt. It's the fault of the predator, juris, not the victim. I apologize for being terribly rude to you with the corporate cock sucking remark. That was wrong. But you (along with Hap, Last, and some others) are a corporate apologist and I think that is a fair criticism that still stands. That's just my opinion, though, not a fact and I base it on what you write.
I apologize for being terribly rude to you with the corporate cock sucking remark.
Thanks, but I wasn't really wounded by it. I was more concerned that you would hurl a homophobic insult - which is clearly what it was intended as.
I am talking about illegal
Then why is Geithner in a position of trust instead of a penitentiary? Your party (and your guy) saw fit to extend and expand a stupid Bush initiative. Why hasn't the AG brought anyone to justice if they broke the law? Could it be exactly what I said - that no law was broken (but that there was a massive amalgamation of greed, stupidity and arrogance)? You claim that Obama's administration had good reason to circumvent bankruptcy law - yet they haven't initiated a single criminal prosecution. I happen to agree with the latter part of that, and that you don't know a fucking thing when it comes to security law. But you have a very well developed sense of moral outrage - and you still can't grasp that no law was broken. Perfect, just perfect.
It's the fault of the investor for being too stupid...
That isn't exactly what I said - but naturally you took it that way. I said "a rule" to apply to everyone, individual investor as well as financial house. And yes, it isn't my fucking fault that someone else (corporation or individual) was stupid and greedy (which is really the case - you want to ignore that second part). So there is no good reason to take my money to make up for that. They are responsible for their own bad decisions. When they feel the pain for that, they just might learn something.
I wish there was a way that LTCM would not have been bailed out either but if Glass Steagall was still in place we wouldn't have had to do so.
The LTCM bailout ('98) preceded the repeal of G-S ('99), which you would've known if you had spent just one minute to look it up rather than ranting your stupid fucking religious dogma.
Blaming the consumer for not understanding the intricacies of the CDO
Which of course I didn't do - stupidity and greed applies to investment banks as much, if not more, than to consumers. And NO FUCKING consumer was playing in CDS markets - they weren't qualified investors. See how you read into whatever I write what you want to see? I doubt that you will see it - Rev. Jim explained it better and more patiently that I do; and you didn't get it then either.
why is Geithner in a position of trust instead of a penitentiary?
The only answer I can come up with on this one is given a choice between Geithner (the guy who let it happen but knows what the fuck he is doing) and someone who knows less, the president chose to go with the devil he knew. I'm not happy about it either and perhaps would have gone in another direction. I can't argue with the results, though. We're doing better than when we were losing 750K jobs a month.
Why hasn't the AG brought anyone to justice if they broke the law? Could it be exactly what I said - that no law was broken
No. It's because it's a Wall Street government-both parties are guilty.
And NO FUCKING consumer was playing in CDS markets
But the interconnections had the ripple effect. By getting loan from a place that was using these instruments doesn't mean that the consumer wasn't being wise with their money. They had no way of knowing these things which is why I think your view is short sighted.
juris, I'm simply responding to what you say and like Jim, I think you may be in some denial. I know you aren't a Republican but these times don't call for libertarian answers either.
The only answer I can come up with...
Is to ignore that your party and your guy are as much the problem as anyone. Worse, because if he did break the law, they not only failed to prosecute and punish him - they promoted him.
Either that or admit that you are wrong and there wasn't any law broken, and Geithner isn't guilty of anything but being a successful asshole.
But the interconnections had the ripple effect.
No. We weren't fucked because of that - we all got fucked because the govt took your and my money to bail out the greedy stupid fuckers. You do realize that you are attempting to say that EVERY downturn in the market is because of evil scheming players. Have you no idea how ridiculous that is?
Greedy, stupid individuals fucked themselves by buying too much house (or flipping them) - not because mortgage bankers were evilly forcing people to take loans at gunpoint. That is where you can't get away from your religious dogma. You can't admit that a whole big chunk of this country overbid themselves and really have no one to blame but themselves. You want to see them as victims, and so you concoct a way to do that. Absolving them of their own responsibility is no way to treat capable adults. I guess you believe yourself, and everyone, to be incapable of caring for themselves - and thus you must have a nanny right up until the day you die.
I think you may be in some denial.
I just love it when you project. You get pretty much the same story from two very independent sources, and conjecture that those sources are somehow linked because they tell you the same thing. Never does it cross your mind that two people who don't know each other could have the same opinion about you - because of you. That is special.
Mark, this is the internet, and it's very anonymous. Isn't it possible that the cock sucker Reverend Jim and the cock sucker Juris are the SAME person?
That line of thought would let you blow off any reflective introspection you may be having, and just keep on keeping on.
Mark:
"but if Glass Steagall was still in place we wouldn't have had to do so."
JI:
"The LTCM bailout ('98) preceded the repeal of G-S ('99)"
Rebuttal Mark?
"I think you may be in some denial."
Post a Comment